Well people are going to differ over what ‘reasonable regulation’ should be. I don’t find the commercials all that bad, or any different from a sponsored search result. Reading the list of side effects in the commercial is stupid though. It certainly keeps me from considering any of the medications, now when I don’t need them. But a recent illness had me paying more attention to the name of the med, and less to the side effects.
Overall, I’d prefer to know what’s available, and limit the restrictions. These are medications that require a doctor’s approval to obtain. There’s no guarantee a doctor will discuss any particular medication with a patient, so the patient needs to know what is available. I wouldn’t mind more restrictions on the content. Personally, I could live without the phony testemonials and actor/patient/doctors.
In 1997, $700 million dollars was spent on drug commercials. In 2004, $4* billion *dollars was spent on drug commercials. According to the link, that’s more than the R&D of new drugs.
Bad news, Blalron. The meds would most likely cost the same. After all, there isn’t any oversight to tell Big Pharma what they can charge for a drug. But it does sound good that they can put the cost of advertising in their pricing model to show us that big pharma isn’t really price gouging anyone.
See, this boils down to… yeah, you guessed it. Money. What a surprise.
As to the OP, in theory, I agree with the concept, but I have to say, I do like hearing the side-effects of any medication that seems to fit any condition I might be suffering from. I especially like the ones that say that “this medication can even cause death in some rare instances.” “Well, I guess they told us, so if I take it and die, I can’t sue!” Of course, I’ll be dead, so I can’t sue anyway, but it sure is nice to know.
Some of the things written in this thread are so flat out wrong, it amazes me. I wonder how many actually know what they are talking about, vs doing a quick search on google, vs pulling things from the lower bowel region.
Big Pharma isn’t having a problem innovating. They have different goals than you think they should have. Big pharma tends to focus their time, energy, money, and other resources on the blockbuster drugs. The ones that will make them countless billions before the patent runs out. As someone mentioned before, if their pipeline is weak, they will buy smaller companies out that have some good products in their product pipeline, but the big pharma researchers in the white lab coats are getting the big bonuses and big salaries to develop medications that will be home runs, not singles.
Yes, that’s why they went to school and learned how to save lives and then went and spent decades hunched over microscopes and beakers: Just to rob you of your money.
The people making the management decisions at big pharma did none of those things. They are all lawyers and accountants. Scientists are just useful drones.
And? Even supposing that that’s true, you’re saying that lawyers and accountants are particularly looking forward to forcing people to destroy their lives?
Well, over here ads for prescription drugs are banned (ads for homeopathy and such aren’t, so if you see an add for a specific “drug”, you can be sure it’s crap).
However, from time to time, an ad runs describing a medical condition and pointing at its seriousness (last I saw was a campaign for a serious eye condition describing its early symptoms), ending with something along the line “consult your doctor”. You can be pretty it means that some new drug entered the market and that the producer hopes you’ll be prescribed this drug (which isn’t named in the commercial).
This does may attract the attention of people who are indeed sick but didn’t really paid attention to the symptoms, and I don’t have much of an issue with that.
Otherwise, I think I wouldn’t mind ads for drugs on TV, providing that a complete list of the possible side effects appears in the ad, read slowly enough so that everybody can clearly understand
If you depend on TV, you’d only get information from those companies who chose to advertise on the programs you watch. By that criteria, Enzyte was the number one drug in America. Sponsored links appear in the context of other links, and so I’m fine with them.
Going to your doctor armed with the results of research is a good thing. Going to your doctor armed only with what you saw on TV is not necessarily a good thing.
There have been many, many stories in the Times about the lack of innovation in Big Pharma. I used to live in Central Jersey, right around a lot of research centers, and knew quite a few scientists who worked there, and my wife worked in a small way on a blockbuster drug, Tagamet. I don’t do drug research but I do other kinds of research, and despite my low opinion of these guys I doubt they are stupid enough to be going for a few home runs. There is a problem about researching drugs with an inherently small (though important) market. But why would anyone fund a start-up to work on small drugs without a lot of profit potential?
We have PSAs which do that now, sometimes, and if drug companies wanted to run these to flush out people with a condition who might not know it, I’d be right behind them. They can even put their name and logo on the ad to build up good will.
Especially in the US with our poor health insurance we might want to encourage people to go to the doctor before something horrendous happens.
But…but…if you outlaw advertising, I won’t see any more of those ads with the CGI Pipe People enthusing about their bladders, or falling-apart houses and double bathtubs for the erectile dysfunction people.
And I love hearing the lists of possible side-effects (“May cause lycanthropy in some users”) – it’s a hypochondriac’s dream.
Why do you hate America[sub]'s effort to rein in skyrocketing medical costs?[/sub]
The OP’s proposal is nanny-state nonsense. There is nothing magical about a doctor’s knowledge that I have to blindly trust it, nor is it reasonable to expect a doctor, any doctor, to be fully versed in all the latest advances in pharmocology. I’m perfectly capable of doing layman research with the tools at my disposal and if I have a health problem that an advertised drug seems to address, I see no harm in looking into it, and then bringing up a few relevant questions at my medical appointment.
Basically, fuck that idea that I, as a smart person, must be denied information because of someone’s fears of what some hypothetical stupid person might do with it. Fuck the idea sideways. It’s elitist bullshit that has not even established that the problem it claims to address even exists and deserves all the scorn it can get.
Sponsored links appear in the context of other links, and so I’m fine with them.